Final answer:
Michael Harrington considered poverty to be "socially invisible" due to a lack of advocacy for urban poor in the suburbs, poverty-induced social divides leading to unrest, and poverty's link to crime increasing social instability.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Michael Harrington, poverty was "socially invisible" for several reasons. Firstly, the urban poor lacked advocacy and visibility to those living in suburban areas, leading to a disconnection between the experiences of the poor and the awareness of middle-class suburbanites.
Secondly, poverty leads to a divide between the rich and the poor, causing feelings of marginalization and exclusion among the impoverished, which can result in social unrest. Lastly, poverty can lead to crime as individuals engage in illegal activities to meet their basic needs, thereby increasing crime rates and contributing to social instability.
These dynamics contribute to the difficulty of reversing poverty, as it affects mental and physical health and is intertwined with crime prevalence. The lack of notable change can indicate the inefficacy of financial assistance programs for the poor, while unstable housing is deeply implicated in the creation of poverty, as highlighted by Desmond's observations in Milwaukee.